adoration when applied to God, it may be asked, How could it be known from the formula here put into the mouths of the false witnesses that the words in question would signify a signalizing by reproach and contempt?

To this it may be replied, that the association of the terms by db pa would determine this. The praise and adoration given to God, if ascribed to the king, would be idolatry; and the same expression that might honour the king, if used alone, would, if applied to God at the same time, be awful profanity. In addition to this, it may be observed that the circumstances of the case would have indicated the fact that if the word could be applied in the sense of profanation, that sense would be apparent here.

Having made some observations on the term and its derivatives in illustrating the idea of the medium signification of words used in opposite acceptations, a further illustration of that idea may be afforded in the following tabular representation:To set apart for holy purto hallow, to

To set apart for impure s

purposes, etc

To set apart

poses,
sanctify.

To honour, praise, salute, dignify, celebrate, worship God, benefit man.

Should these observations prove worthy of notice, they may afford some assistance in the interpretation of other passages to which allusion has been made, and to which our attention may be directed at some future period.

J. M.

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF MATT. xvi. 18.

Συ εἰ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταυτῇ τῇ Πέτρα οἰκοδομήσω μου την εκκλησιαν.—Matt. xvi. 18.

THIS language, I am confidently of opinion, when properly understood, gives no countenance to the sentiment that either Peter or his faith is the rock on which the Church is built. Neither Peter nor his faith in Scripture is called a rock. Jesus Christ himself is the rock on which the Church is founded. That Peter's faith is not the rock on which the Church is erected, is evident from the fact that it, as well as the faith of every other Christian, is founded upon Jesus Christ, the true rock,

for other foundation

foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' It is to no purpose to tell us that the Saviour on this occasion addressed his disciples in Aramæan, and that the word N' Kepha, which in that language is the name for Peter, does not admit of a masculine and feminine termination, and that our Lord must have said, 'Thou art kepha, and on this kepha I will,' &c. I am not aware that we have any certainty that the Saviour on this occasion spoke in Aramæan; he may have addressed his disciples in Greek for anything that we can tell, and he may have expressed himself in the very same words employed by the evangelist. We must not attempt to make out the Saviour's meaning from what we fancy he may have said in Aramæan; on the contrary, we must be guided solely by what the evangelist has recorded in the New Testament in Greek. In whatever language our Lord spoke to his disciples we have no authority to direct us in ascertaining his meaning but the Greek. In the Greek text the word for Peter is Πετρος, and that for rock is πετρα. These two words are not employed as synonymes in Greek; on the contrary, they are used in different acceptations: the former is employed to signify a stone and the latter a rock. That the translators of the Bible understood the word Ergos as meaning a stone is evident from their rendering it so in John i. 43. The Greek word TETρos is not used in the New Testament but as the name of the apostle Peter; we must therefore have recourse to classical authority for ascertaining its signification. The term Teтga is frequently found in the New Testament and in the Septuagint, as well as in classical Greek, and it is uniformly employed as denoting a rock. In the subsequent part of this article I shall endeavour to prove that πετρος signifies a stone, and that πετρα denotes a rock. If this fact can be satisfactorily established, then it is manifest that Terpa cannot be a substitute for πετρος, both being used in different senses.

In the Iliad of Homer, book 7, line 270, we are told that Ajax, when contending with Hector, broke through his shield, striking it with a stone like a millstone (μvdosideï netew). In Iliad 16, line 411, it is said that Patroclus struck Euryalus with a stone (TET) on the middle of the head; and in line 734 of the same book we are told that Patroclus leaped from his chariot to the ground, holding his spear in his left hand, but with the other he seized a stone (TETρov), white, rugged, which his hand embraced. Iliad 20, line 288, reads thus, Æneas seized in his hand a stone (TET), a great weight.' In Xenophon, Anabasis, book 4, page 271, Hutchinson's edition, the word Terpos is used to signify a stone: the passage reads thus, Ὡς γὰρ ἅπαξ εἷς ἐπέδραμεν οὐδεις ετι πέτρος ἄνωθεν ηνέχθη— for the moment one of them gained the

ascent

ascent there was no more stones thrown from above.' In the Medea of Euripides, line 28, the word érgos is used to signify a stone: the language runs thus, neither raising her eye nor turning her face from the earth.' She listens to her friends when advised by them), ὡς πέτρος ή θαλάσσιος κλύδων, as a stone or as the ocean's billow. The term Térpos is employed in the same acceptation in the Edipus Coloneus of Sophocles, line 436, which runs thus: On the very day when my anger boiled, and when to be stoned with stones (το λευσθῆναι πέτροις) would have been most welcome to me.' Longinus, also, in his Treatise on the Sublime, uses Ergos to signify a stone, in section 35, where he says, do not reckon anything in nature more wonderful than the boiling furnaces of Ætna, which cast up stones, Térgous.' The word TETρos is also used by Pindar as denoting a stone. In 2 Macc. i. 16, TEτgos means a stone: the passage reads thus: And opening a privy door of the roof, they threw stones (TETρOUs) like thunderbolts, and struck down the captain;' and also in 2 Macc. iv. 41, the word is employed in the same sense, where we are told that the people, seeing the attempt of Lysimachus, some of them caught stones (érρous).

we

The term TTρa, I believe, is uniformly employed to signify a rock, but never in the sense of a single stone. There is no example in any good author of marga being used for Tρos, as denoting a stone, although sometimes TETpos may be used for ετę. In confirmation of the fact that Terpa signifies a rock, and that it is not used in the sense of Terços, as meaning a stone, we shall have recourse to classical authority, as well as to the Septuagint and New Testament Greek. In the Iliad of Homer, book 2, line 88, the poet says, the people thronged together like swarms of bees, which come over continually from the hollow rock (ETgns).' In Iliad, book 16, line 407, Homer speaks of a man sitting on a projecting rock (ETP). In Iliad, book 15, lines. 273 and 619, we have the phrases nλißaros Téтgn, an inaccessible rock; and in the 16th book of the Iliad, and line 35, we read Teтga nλißato, inaccessible rocks. See Buttman's Lexilogus. In Xenophon, Anabasis, book 1, page 28, Hutchinson's edition, we have the same phrase and in the same sense. In the Anabasis of the same author, book 4, page 268, same edition, it is said, they rolled down (20ous ÚTTEρ TAÚTNS TÕS ÚTEREXOVONS TETRAS) stones from the impending rock. In Xenophon, Anabasis, book 4, page 228, we read, that all who had not leaped from the rock (Tɛrgas) and joined the rear, were slain.

In the Septuagint translation, I believe, the Hebrew word for rock is uniformly rendered by яɛτęz, and never by Eтços. Take

the

the following as a specimen: Jer. iv. 29; Ex. xvii. 6; Judg. xx. 47; xv. 8; 1 Sam. xiv. 4; xxiii. 28; Num. xx. 10, 11; Deut. xxxii. 13; Isa. ii. 10; Jer. v. 3; Amos vi. 12; 1 Chron. xi. 15; 1 Sam. xiii. 6; Jer. xlviii. 28.

The New Testament writers, without an exception, use ɛTÇÀ to signify a rock, but never ergos. Matt. vii. 24, 25, reads thus: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken unto a wise man which built his house upon rock' (ε Tηy Tρav). In Matt. xxvii. 51-60, we are told, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake and the rocks rent' (καὶ αἱ πέτραι εσχίσ Onsav); and in the 60th verse it is said that the body of Jesus was laid in a tomb hewn out in the rock (εv Teтρa). In Mark xv. 46, it is said the body of the Saviour was laid in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock (ex Teтgas). In Luke vi. 48, we are told that whosoever cometh, heareth, and doeth the sayings of Christ, is like a man that built a house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock (ɛπi τny πɛtgav). In Rom. ix. 33, we have the expression Tergav oxavdáhov, 'rock of offence,' applied to Christ; and in 1 Cor. x. 4, it is said they did all drink of the spiritual rock (Tgas) that followed them, and that rock was Christ.' In 1 Pet. ii. 7, the Saviour is called a rock of offence (ETρa oxavdáhov). In Rev. vi. 15, 16, various classes of people are said to hide themselves in the rocks of the mountains (εις τας πέτρας των ὄρεων) and to call upon the rocks (ταις πέτραις) to fall on them.

These citations prove, I think, that the word Erga, both in the Septuagint and New Testament Greek, is employed uniformly to signify a rock, and also that it is figuratively applied to the Saviour; but neither Peter nor any of the apostles is ever called TETga. Jesus therefore must be the zerga on which the Church is built, and not Peter nor his faith.

W. N.

REMARKS

REMARKS ON JOHN III. 13.

Greek Text.Ver. 12. Εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν, καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια πιστεύσετε ;—Ver. 13. Καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβὰς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

Authorised Version.-Ver. 12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?-Ver. 13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.

Proposed rendering.—Ver. 13. And yet none hath ascended into heaven, but (there is) one who hath descended from heaven, the Son of Man whose abode is in heaven.

AMONG the many of the rulers' who accepted the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth as credentials satisfactorily attesting his Divine mission, one of the earliest so convinced was Nicodemus. He was a pharisee, and a teacher of the law. In the latter capacity he seems to have acquired so great a reputation for learning as to have won the title of, nar' oxv, 'the teacher of Israel,' (ver. 10). And not content to slumber slothfully in the arms of fame, and desist from those labours which had raised him to the eminence he enjoyed, he continued his theologic toil; and, as is usual in intellectual research, the deeper he dug, the more ponderous and unmanageable were the difficulties at which he arrived. A greater Teacher however appears, the prophet of Nazareth-perchance the Messiah. To him he will propound his difficulties, and an opportunity will thus be at the same time afforded him of becoming acquainted with this remarkable person.

It seems to be not an altogether improbable conjecture that he intended to seek information relative to the coming of the kingdom of God. But before he has time to propose his question, Jesus solemnly apprises him that none can see that kingdom except first he be born again. Awe-struck by the solemnity of manner with which this is announced to him, and by the evidence of superhuman knowledge that he perceives in him who has thus read the thoughts of his heart, he dares not absolutely disbelieve, yet cannot understand. He inquires how this pre-requisite is possible. To remove all lingering doubt, the assertion is repeated as solemnly as it first was enunciated: he is taught that as there is a natural birth, so there is a spiritual birth: he is forbidden to indulge a feeling of wondering incredulity; and reminded that we may find among the commonest physical phenomena things quite incomprehensible to us. Still he requests that more light may be shed on this mysterious subject, and Jesus is not unwilling to comply with the request. But first he gently reproaches him with his unacquaintance, though

he